This Lenten post has been very difficult for me to write, because it involves an examination of a subject that I have always struggled with - prayer.

I have decided to make this post into a set of reflections on a passage from the book Everything Belongs, written by Fr. Richard Rohr. The passage begins thusly: "Prayer is not primarily saying words or thinking thoughts. It is, rather, a stance. It's a way of living in The Presence."

Growing up in a Protestant fundamentalist home, I was taught that prayers in fact were a recitation of words or thoughts. It was supposed to be an
improvised verbal communication with God, spontaneous and heart-felt, not read or memorized or recited repetitiously.

My religious tradition even shied away
from formal written prayers or recitations like The Apostle's Creed.
About the only liturgical prayer that was ever spoken in my Nazarene
church was The Lord's Prayer; I suppose that one was okay because
Jesus himself prayed it. We also occasionally had congregational
“responsive readings,” but we were very careful not to consider
these readings actual “prayers.” And we read the liturgical
scriptures describing The Last Supper during Communion. But again,
this was considered a formal ceremony (like a wedding, where a
liturgy is also performed) and not a prayer. We sang the Doxology, but considered it to be a hymn, not a prayer.

Great prayers, then, were great
improvisations. I remember an elderly gentleman in our church,
Brother Oquain, who could “really pray,” as my mother put it. He
had a strong voice and an incredible command of King James English,
and he could deliver the most passionate, poetic prayer
improvisations that I have ever heard -- “OOOoooooh gracious
Heavenly Father. We beseech Thee, O God. Shew Thy mercies upon us.
Bless us with Thy Holy Spirit ...” and so on. THAT was
great prayer.

So when we rhetorically asked, "How do you pray?", I think what we really wanted to know was how do you develop the skill to deliver that kind of riveting oratory? What we should have been asking was, How do we find The Presence?

...

Fr. Rohr continues - "It is, further, a way of living in awareness of the Presence, even enjoying the Presence. The full contemplative is not just aware of the Presence, but trusts, allows, and delights in it."

Contemplation -- how about that! Prayer is not a soapbox for our personal hopes and grievances. It is not a time for us to do the talking. Instead it is a time for us to listen, to be aware. It is a meditative endeavor that requires us to be seekers rather than rhetoricians. It's not really even a conversation, in the sense that we would feel obligated to recite a spiritual grocery list of wants and needs, or a list of divine directives, or a litany of complaints about how poorly the world is treating us, and then sit in impatient silence expecting, no, demanding, a response from God.

So, how do we pray? How do we wind ourselves down, stop the demands and worries and grievances whirling around in our minds, and seek His still, small voice? How do we empty ourselves and enter fully into His Presence?

For two thousand years, Christians have used repetitive, meditative prayers to wash away the grime of everyday life, as a way of focusing their consciousness on the miracles and mysteries surrounding the life of Jesus Christ and birth of the Church through the in-filling of the Holy Spirit:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Hail Mary, Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,and at the hour of our death. Amen.

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy. Amen.

No complaints. No questions. No directives. Just simple praise, and pleas for mercy, salvation, and, of all things, more prayers. It can't be that simple, can it?

Maybe it is. Maybe the real trick is emptying ourselves, making ourselves vulnerable and inviting His spirit to fully bond with us. The Apostle Paul calls this process sanctification -- yet another term that I have grown to appreciate in a far different way that I was originally taught as a child.

Another one of my favorite Catholic authors, Fr. Henri Nouwen, says: "It requires a lot of inner solitude and silence to become aware of these divine movements. God does not shout, scream, or push. The Spirit of God is soft and gentle like a small voice or a light breeze. It is the spirit of love ... The Spirit of Love says: 'Don't be afraid to let go of your need to control your own life. Let me fulfill the true desire of your heart.'"

...

Even if you are not comfortable with repetitive or meditative prayer, let me encourage you to try it anyway. Start with something simple, like "Glory Be To the Father":

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

As you repeat the prayer, begin to block out the things in your world that, in turn, block out your ability to feel His presence. Then offer a simple, heart-felt praise. Thank Him for his blessings. Ask Him to heal the sick. Ask for guidance. Then quietly sing The Doxology.

If you are seeking mercy or healing for a loved one, please include those things. But forget about the list of things for you. It's not about you, as a former pastor used to tell us, it's all about Jesus.

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the
conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life. - Henry David Thoreau

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their consciences.” –C.S. Lewis

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now
and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently
despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all
right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from
creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the
people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.” - Robert Heinlein

Many of us are hoping that all those in power fail, because those in
power have a grating habit of being annoyingly self-righteous,
hopelessly corrupt, resolutely incompetent and completely apathetic
about the freedoms that they have sworn to protect. - David Harsanyi

It's been a while since I've written about Christianity. Instead, I have been blogging about politics and current events on pretty much a daily basis at WizBang. I enjoy it, but lately it has become very draining emotionally. There is so much bad news out there, and so much to be critical of, and writing about it every day can -- and will -- affect your attitude and your spiritual health.

So I have decided to spend some time focusing on the Gospel and on the life of Jesus Christ. Since Lent is a season of prayer and reflection, and since millions upon millions of Roman Catholics will be praying the Rosary during Lent, I have decided to write about the Rosary prayers from a Protestant point of view. Hopefully my audience will find my ruminations edifying. I am also hoping that Roman Catholic readers will not find them to be overly simplistic or misguided.

I was raised in the Church of the Nazarene in southeast Texas. I grew up in a community that was, culturally, very Roman Catholic. There were lots of Cajuns, Hispanics, and later on thousands of Vietnamese in our community. This probably made the Protestant fundamentalists feel somewhat isolated and defensive. I was raised in a very strict Protestant fundamentalist home and we attended a church that was very much traditionally fundamentalist with an emphasis on "holiness." Without getting off-topic and into a lengthy discussion of "Nazarenedom," I'll just say that our tradition very heavily emphasized temperance of all kinds (alcohol, tobacco, dancing, movies and worldly entertainment, profanity and all aspects of the "sexual revolution) and taught that salvation was a two-step process: step one was "getting saved" by confessing and repenting of one's sins, and step two involved "entire sanctification," whereby the Holy Spirit would completely purge sinful desires, thus enabling a disciplined Christian to lead a sinless life. Of course if you sinned again, you were obligated to confess it immediately and ask God for forgiveness; if you did not do so and you unexpectedly died with "unconfessed sin on your heart," you would go to Hell. Of course, anyone who had not formally confessed their sin to God and received forgiveness for it was automatically destined to spend eternity in Hell.

My immediate family (and most fundamentalist Christians that I knew) took a very dim view of Catholics -- they drank alcohol, they smoked, they worshiped little plastic statues of Jesus and Mary, and they could sin all they wanted and then their priest would tell them that everything was okay. They said funny prayers over and over again, and they observed all of these strange rituals that were supposed to guarantee them entrance into Heaven. Lent, of course, was one of those rituals. It was meaningless, of course, because we all knew that Catholics wallowed in sex and alcohol during Mardi Gras, only to feign repentance and sorrow during Lent. And after Easter, they would all go right back to boozing it up again.

Needless to say, my appreciation for the Roman Catholic faith has grown considerably over the years. With the help of Roman Catholic friends (many of whom possessed a spirituality and an understanding of the Gospel that would put most Protestant fundamentalists to shame), and the writings of G. K. Chesterton, Richard John Neuhaus, Henri Nouwen, Carlo Caretto, Oscar Romero, and others, I have been profoundly impacted by the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic church -- which after all, was "The Church" until the sixteenth century's Protestant Reformation.

This Lenten season (a religious observance that I have now come to cherish) I will be focusing my personal devotions on the Rosary, which is a series of prayers used for meditation and reflection on the mysteries
of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and as homage to The Virgin Mary. As I am not Catholic, I will ask your forgiveness for using Wikipedia and the
Web for most of my source material on the Rosary.

According to Wikipedia, the Rosary is usually recited with the help of a string of beads that is attached to a small crucifix. As each prayer is uttered, the individual slides their fingers along the beads, and uses them as a placeholder of sorts during the recitation of the prayers.

A rosary provides a physical method of keeping track of the number of Hail Marys
said. The fingers are moved along the beads as the prayers are recited.
By not having to keep track of the count mentally, the mind is more
able to meditate on the mysteries. A five decade rosary contains five
groups of ten beads (a decade), with additional large beads before each
decade. The Hail Mary is said on the ten beads within a decade, while the Our Father
is said on the large bead before each decade. A new mystery is
meditated upon at each of the large beads. Some rosaries, particularly
those used by religious orders,
contain 15 decades, corresponding to the traditional 15 mysteries of
the rosary. Both five and 15 decade rosaries are attached to a shorter
strand, which starts with a crucifix
followed by one large, three small, and one large beads before
connecting to the rest of the rosary. The praying of the rosary is
started on the short strand, reciting the Apostle's Creed at the crucifix, an Our Father at the first large bead, three Hail Marys on the next three beads, then a Glory be to the Father
on the next large bead. The praying of the decades then follows.
Although counting the prayers on a string of beads is customary, the
prayers of the rosary do not actually require a set of beads, but can
be said using any type of counting device, by counting on one's
fingers, or by counting by oneself without any device at all.

What I plan to do in these posts is to explore the major prayers and creeds that make up the Rosary sequence (The Apostle's Creed, Hail Mary, The Lord's Prayer, Glory Be To The Father, Hail Holy Queen, and the Prayer of Fatima). That means, of course, that I will be writing quite a bit about the Virgin Mary, which admittedly is a bit awkward for a Protestant. I will then write about the Holy Mysteries and, consequently, the Gospel as I understand it.

I've never before committed myself to such a deep study of the Gospel over a limited season such as Lent. My life won't slow down around it either, yet I am confident that I can see it through. And I will be prayerfully petitioning God for an increase of understanding and devotion as I contemplate these prayers and mysteries.

I'll begin in my next post -- thoughts on repetitive or meditative prayer.

From Instapundit, who writes: " A screenshot from Memeorandum last night (Feb. 21)":

We're officially one month into the United States of Obama, and as a Republican who voted for John McCain/Sarah Palin, I can say that my expectations for the Obama Administration have been met -- but not in a good way.

I expected that Obama would to find governing much more difficult than campaigning, but I had no idea that it would only take weeks for the Obama White House to come across as a bunch of clueless dolts. And their attempts to marginalize the press and conservative media figures have been nothing but immature. Really -- can you imagine President Bush telling Democrats to stop listening to Keith Olbermann and stop reading MoveOn.org and start cooperating more with Republicans?

I expected that Democrats would be revealed to be no more virtuous than Republicans, but the sheer number and scope of Democrat scandals -- lobbying, pay-for-play, influence peddling, and especially unpaid taxes -- (Caroline Kennedy, Timothy Geithner, Hilda Solis, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, Charlie Rangel, Jack Murtha, Roland Burris ... did I forget anyone?) has been staggering.

I expected the Democrats to be somewhat drunk with power now that they control both Congress and the White House, but I never thought that they would have the audacity to stuff fourteen years worth of pork barrel spending into a single bill!

And finally, I expected that Barack Obama would eventually vindicate most of the Bush Administration's War on Terror policies simply by continuing them, but I was stunned that it happened so quickly. It seems that the Obama administration is much more frightened of the political consequences of a domestic terror attack than they are of a deep and lengthy economic recession.

It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that most of the "antiwar" hysteria during the past six years was simply anti-Republicanism. It was about smearing the Bush Administration, ensuring the failure of their policies, and destroying Bush's legacy. It was all about hatred and partisan politics, and it had more to do with Bush's narrow win in 2000 than with anything related to Bush's foreign policy or use of military force.

I'm convinced that history will be kind to President Bush, particularly in light of the Obama Administration's quiet continuation of his War on Terror policies. And perhaps forty or fifty years in the future, our grandchildren will shake their heads at the unhinged Bush hatred that so dominated newspapers, television, movies, music, and other entertainment media during the first decade of the twenty first century.

But here and now, I think President Bush is owed a major, feature-length, show-stopping, banner headline apology. Go ahead, liberals and progressives, yellow dog Democrats, Hollywood, and the Ivy League. You're all so much smarter and wiser than George W. Bush. Admit you were wrong. Go ahead, just admit it. You all said Bush was a cretin and an evil-doer for not admitting his "mistakes." You wouldn't want that judgment hanging over your heads, now would you?

Speaking of which, here's one more thought. How many times will the American people be duped by a bunch of elitist twits into believing that the only path to leadership is through the political and cultural environment of the Ivy League, and any Ivy League golden boy (or girl) is therefore smarter, wiser, and more qualified to lead? How many times will we fall for this? And how much will we be willing to suffer politically and financially because of our folly?

I've become a huge fan of the blog Car Lust. This month, they featured automotive "epic fails," and they just ended the series with the biggest automotive epic fail of them all, the 1958 Edsel.

In spite of a lot of good ideas and a metric boatload of money spent on market research, design, and an exhaustive advertising campaign, the American people walked away from the Edsel. The moral of the story?

The tale of the Edsel is fascinating because it's an instance of a
large organization full of talented, competent, well-intentioned people
setting a goal that seemed perfectly reasonable, marching confidently
toward that goal--and going straight off a cliff. There was no one big
colossal mistake ... so much as there was a long
series of minor to moderate miscalculations that all added up to an
idea that not only didn't fly, but crashed and burned on takeoff and
left a great smoking hole in Ford's corporate treasury.

Remember that the next time someone tries to convince you that they are so smart, and their ideas are so good, that they always know what is best for you and cannot possibly ever be wrong about it.

One of the leading intellectual lights of the "Religious Right," Fr.Richard John Neuhaus, died this week at the age of 72. Neuhaus was instrumental in creating and nurturing perhaps the two most powerful American cultural partnerships of the past thirty years: uniting Protestants and Catholics in the pursuit of common moral interests, and allying social conservatives with traditional free market fiscal conservatives.

Neuhaus' greatest body of writing stemmed from his position as editor-in-chief of the journal First Things. His monthly editorial column, "The Public Square," was one of the most influential soapboxes for religious conservatism, and his brilliant command of language, combined with his astute observations and marvelous intellect, made his work appealing to both the political Left and Right.

If you've never read Fr. Neuhaus, then you will enjoy this excerpt from his excellent First Things piece on post-Katrina New Orleans entitled "The New Orleans That Was":

There remains the question of rebuilding New Orleans. I have friends whose families go back generations there, and they are deeply divided. Some are in profound mourning for its death, and others defiantly declare that a little hurricane, or even a very big hurricane, cannot kill what New Orleans was and will be again. All agree that New Orleans was different from any other American city. Joel Lockhart Dyer once wrote, "New Orleans is North America's Venice; both cities are living on borrowed time." Michael Ledeen thinks Naples the more apt comparison: "Naples also faces destruction--volcanic destruction from 'Vesuvius the Exterminator,' as the poet Verga once wrote--and Naples, too, is noted for a lively, and often lawless style of life, along with great literature, art, cuisine, and music. . . . The European stereotype of the Neapolitan is very much like the American image of New Orleanians: lazy, happy, spontaneous, and unrepressed, slow-moving but quick-witted, and very happy with the food."

New Orleans is a streetcar named Desire that has made its final run. The French Quarter, built on the city's original and higher ground, was not so badly damaged. I suppose it could be revived as a clean, well-lighted place, but that would not be New Orleans. The play city of New Orleans was also situated in a swamp of poverty, corruption, and decadence. Swamp and city were inextricably joined, and the hundreds of thousands who have relocated may not want to return to the swamp. Halliburton and Disney may spruce up the tourist attractions, and it may be a great success, as the cleaning up of Times Square has proved. But it will not be New Orleans. Times Square is not New York; there are many other places to go and things to do. In New Orleans, the central attraction was the French Quarter--and it cannot be the French Quarter without the surrounding decadence, Dixieland, and broken dreams.

[...]

In the chaos of Katrina, it was repeatedly said that this is the kind of thing that happens in the third world, not in America. There had always been something of the third world about New Orleans. It was an American anomaly. In addition to Naples, there was also the feel of what one finds in Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro, or even of Dakar in Senegal in the last days of colonial control. Throw in the antebellum South. In New Orleans, one often came across historical oddments, such as the crown of thorns that Pope Pius IX plaited for the imprisoned Jefferson Davis, in the tattered Museum of the Confederacy. New Orleans was a pervasively Catholic city that knew all about "inculturation" long before the Second Vatican Council. There was voodoo, pentecostal enthusiasm, and superstition galore, and it was far from clear what had inculturated what. Between the evil eye and sacramental grace there was an unspoken pact, and for everything, if you didn't get yourself killed, there was absolution. New Orleans lived off absolution. Theologians may call it cheap grace, but it was grace enough to keep the sinners going from day to day.

I spoke there from time to time at the universities, Loyola and Tulane, and once to a group of business leaders. These are the white and wealthy patrons who pretended to let the black folk rule by choosing the politicians for whom they could vote. New Orleans was an unabashedly traditional and hierarchical city that managed to accommodate the civil rights movement with relatively slight inconvenience. Welfare and circuses did not make for prosperity, but it pacified the restless. The "krewes" were the elite clubs in charge of the lavish Mardi Gras floats, and nobody seriously challenged their authoritative delineation of who was who in the social order of New Orleans. I was musing with the business leaders about the strangeness of it all and wondering how it came to be, when a gentleman who was "in real estate" (and was said to own a third of the city) politely interrupted and said, "Well, you have to understand, Father, that New Orleans just kinda happened."

I expect that's right, and no amount of local pride, entrepreneurial capitalism, or massive government aid will make it happen again. There will be a New Orleans again. The port and refineries will get back on their feet and the tourists will flock to the "revived" French Quarter. But it will not be New Orleans. It will work hard at being New Orleans, but precisely to the degree that it works hard at being New Orleans, or works hard at anything for that matter, it is not New Orleans. The tourists will tell themselves they have been to New Orleans, and those who remember will kindly decline to disabuse them.

With the ever-increasing presence of the Religious Left in our national ethics, and the strong alliance between the Obama Administration and liberal Christianity, Fr. Neuhaus' strong conservative voice will be sorely missed.

When I was in junior high school, Mom and I enjoyed "junking" together at garage sales on Saturday mornings, or on weekday mornings if I was out of school for the summer. I especially enjoyed buying records, which could be had en masse for next to nothing.

One of the items that I bought during those garage sale days was an LP on the1950's low-budget Tops label entitled "The Best Musical Comedy Songs." The record was a dud, but the cover -- well, that was a prize I still treasure to this day. I had no idea who the sultry brunette in the leopard-skin bating suit was, but her smoldering beauty crawled under my skin and invaded my adolescent mind like no other female had ever done. I spent literally hours staring at her picture, lost in her cool blue eyes and plump red lips.

Bettie was born in Jackson, Tennessee, part of a family of six children. Her father, Roy Page, worked as an auto mechanic during the Depression, and eventually settled the family down on a dirt farm 30 miles outside of Nashville. He was an alcoholic. He was abusive and a habitual womanizer. Bettie's mother finally threw him out on the street when a 15 year old girl turned up pregnant and named Roy as the father. With no means of financial support, Edna Page was forced to place her children in a state orphanage for a year, so she could work and save her meager earnings. Edna eventually took Roy back but, sadly, he began sexually abusing Bettie and her two sisters.

In addition to her stunning looks, Bettie possessed a sharp mind and a strong will. She realized that education was her ticket out of misery. She graduated salutatorian in her high school class, wrote for the school yearbook and newspaper, and was an active member of the drama club. She failed to earn a scholarship to Vanderbilt University, but ended up instead at Vanderbilt's Peabody College, a four-year teacher's school. She never taught; barely 21 years of age, she found it impossible to manage a classroom full of 17 and 18 year old high school seniors, especially the boys. That real-life "hot for teacher" experience made her realize that she was not cut out for the classroom.

Soon after graduating, she entered several modeling contests and soon caught the eye of a photographer and would-be talent agent named Art Grayson, who sent photos of Bettie to 20th Century Fox. They offered her a screen test, which went poorly; Bettie also refused the advances of a key junior studio executive. On a whim, Bettie married a young man named Billy Neal, who had recently joined the Navy. Billy was shipped out on his first tour of duty shortly after their wedding, and while Billy was at sea Bettie realized that her marriage was a foolish mistake. They separated shortly after he returned stateside.

Bettie moved to Miami, then for a short while to Port-Au-Prince Haiti, and finally to New York City, where she was physically assaulted by a group of young men looking for a better time than Bettie was willing to provide. She returned, shaken, to Nashville, then worked up the courage to go back to New York again. She worked a variety of low-paying secretarial and service jobs and participated in some local amateur theater groups. Then, quite by chance, she met an amateur photography buff named Jerry Tibbs.

Tibbs was overtaken by Bettie's smoldering looks, and asked her to model for him. In turn, he introduced her to Cass Carr, who ran several so-called "camera clubs." In those days, before flesh peddling was big business -- or even legal -- amateur connoisseurs of pulchritude operated these clubs, which hired women to model while an excited bunch of photographers feverishly snapped pictures. Betty lavished the attention given her by the camera club photographers, and she enjoyed the extra money that modeling brought in. She eagerly posed in skimpy clothing, lingerie, bathing suits, and in the nude. "I was not trying to be shocking, or to be a pioneer," she later wrote. "I was just myself. I didn't know any other way to be, or any other way to live."

Camera club gigs soon gave way to a seemingly endless series of professional modeling jobs. Bettie soon found herself on the cover of dozens of men's magazines, on playing cards, on calendars, record albums, pulp fiction novels -- anywhere pictures of pretty girls were in demand. Bettie was Playboy magazine's December 1955 centerfold. She took method acting lessons at Lee Strasberg's Actor's Studio and appeared in summer stock theater productions. Bettie eventually caught the attention of Irving and Paula Klaw, who produced photographs and short films of burlesque stars and up-and-coming glamor models.

But the Klaws also produced "specialty" erotica, and eagerly filled the requests of high-paying private customers who requested unusual and -- for the time -- extremely taboo subject matter. Bettie and several other models posed for numerous photo sessions where they were photographed hog-tied, bound and gagged, threatening each other with whips and spanking one aonther.

Unfortunately for Bettie, some of the Klaws' most daring fetish work became public, and she was dragged into the middle of a high-profile investigation by Senator Estes Kefauver, who was attempting to uncover ties between the pornography industry and organized crime. Although Bettie was never called to testify before Congress, she witnessed what she considered to be the unfair persecution of Irving and Paula Klaw, which ended with a 1963 conviction for conspiring to send obscene materials through the US Mail. She also began receiving letters from a stalker who threatened to kill her. By the end of 1957, at the age of 34, she had enough. She left New York and never took another modeling job again, fading into complete obscurity for forty years.

After she quit modeling, Betty became deeply religious, and attended the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Multnoma School of the Bible in Portland, Oregon. She counseled young girls and unwed mothers, did missionary work, and even worked for a while as a counselor for the Billy Graham crusades. But her personal life always remained in turmoil. She married a second time, separated, divorced, remarried Billy Neal, divorced, and finally married a third time in 1972. After that marriage failed, she subsequently underwent a nervous breakdown and was diagnosed with severe depression and schizophrenia. She couldn't find adequate work, and scraped by on her Social Security benefits alone. After attacking a recalcitrant landlady with a knife, she ended up in a mental hospital for eight years.

Writers Karen Essex and James Swanson tracked Bettie down in the late 1990's and convinced her to collaborate with them on a book about her life. Bettie shared her life story and many rare photographs with Essex and James, who eventually published Bettie Page - The Life of a Pinup Legend. The darker side of Bettie's life was explored in Richard Foster's unofficial biography The Real Betty Page. Although she attained a huge cult following in the 1980's and 1990's, Bettie reaped very little financial reward from it. Her only public appearances in later years were at events sponsored by Playboy magazine: Hugh Hefner's 2003 birthday party, and Playboy's 50 anniversary celebration in 2004.

At the invitation of Kevin Alyward, several guest bloggers including myself have been writing for WizBang Blog. Kevin needs to fill the huge hole left by the departure of his main feature writer, JayTea, who is now writing exclusively for Commentary Magazine's blog Contentions. The open period for Kevin's guest contributors ends today, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. It's nice to have your work seen by thousands instead of dozens, and generate lots of interesting comments.

Anyway, if you would like to read what I wrote for WizBang, here are links to my posts:

A few thoughts about this past week's terrorist massacre in Mumbai, India.

First, a heartfelt praise. A long-time friend of mine who is a pilot with Delta Airlines was in Mumbai last week, and in fact was staying at the Taj Hotel. He was away from the hotel when the terrorists attacked. He was kept in safe custody by the police and put on a plane home Friday. He lost all his things back at the hotel, but not his life. I thank God for his deliverance as I pray for the souls and the families of those who were not so fortunate.

What we witnessed this past week literally looked like a scene from a Hollywood film or TV police drama -- a small group of well-trained and well-armed terrorists, coordinating their attacks and communicating with one another via satellite phones and GPS devices, attacks a large number of targets throughout the city of Mumbai, throwing the city's emergency response services into a state of chaos. They take hostages, they torture and kill, they set off bombs and start fires. Then they converge on their main target, the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, killing dozens, taking hostages and torturing them, and planting bombs in an effort to implode the hotel and kill everyone inside, including themselves. Despite the great loss of life it was in the end, as Instapundit noted, an "epic fail," with a final body count between 5% - 10% of the 5000 deaths that they originally planned.

As criminalists and police swarm the scenes of the attacks, looking for clues and attempting to assign "responsibility," we should be reminded that these attacks were not crimes. With the exception of lovers quarrels and the work of psychopathic killers, crimes are generally committed for financial gain. What these attacks represented was not a crime, but a fanatical commitment to an ideology. Mark Steyn observes:

You're sitting in some distant foreign capital but you're of a mind
to pull off a Mumbai-style operation in, say, Amsterdam or Manchester
or Toronto. Where would you start? Easy. You know the radical mosques,
and the other ideological front organizations. You've already made
landfall.

It's missing the point to get into debates about
whether this is the "Deccan Mujahideen" or the ISI or al-Qaida or
Lashkar-e-Taiba. That's a reductive argument. It could be all or none
of them. The ideology has been so successfully seeded around the world
that nobody needs a memo from corporate HQ to act: There are so many of
these subgroups and individuals that they intersect across the planet
in a million different ways. It's not the Cold War, with a small
network of deep sleepers being directly controlled by Moscow. There are
no membership cards, only an ideology. That's what has radicalized
hitherto moderate Muslim communities from Indonesia to the central
Asian 'stans to Yorkshire, and co-opted what started out as more or
less conventional nationalist struggles in the Caucasus and the Balkans
into mere tentacles of the global jihad.

As I have written before, the ideology that drives these attacks is based on a corrupted version of Islam. Young men (and now apparently women) are exposed to elements of this ideology from birth, and when they reach a certain age they immersed in it. These young people (like all intelligent young people) know that something is wrong with the world, but instead of being encouraged to explore and learn and ask questions, they are brainwashed into the cult of radical, violent Islam. They are taught to ignore their own obvious cultural and societal shortcomings, and to instead believe that their problems are solely the result of Allah's wrath. His rage burns because His people have abandoned the teachings of the Koran, and have instead polluted themselves by accommodating the sinfulness of Western infidels and Jews. Allah must be shown that a new generation of Muslims is committed to restoring holiness to the ummah, and the only way to do this is to slaughter infidels, Jews, and apostate Muslims, so that their blood can atone for the sins of all Muslims and persuade Allah to once again bless His people.

This bloody ideology, as Mark Steyn notes, has spread throughout the world. Its adherents are linked simply by a shared body of literature and teachings. Local organizations abound, some with international links, but there is no "central command." Each group has its own leaders, but their members freely travel from one nation to another, from one group to another, keeping the movement alive and making attempts to quash it increasingly more difficult. It is this elusive aspect that gives the movement such an ethereal and spiritual quality, and allows religious leaders to characterize it as a manifestation of the will of Allah.

In many ways radical Islam resembles the Marxist idealism that spread throughout the world following the Second World War. However, that idealism almost immediately manifested itself in a series of full-scale violent revolutions, as Marxist forces overthrew governments and created Communist states. Most of those governments ended in failure; those that took decades to fail provided a hard target for Western foreign policy and military operations. Also, the appeal of Marxism varied greatly; it only attracted a substantial following in poor, post-colonial nations. In nations brutalized by Communist governments, it is extremely unlikely that Marxism will ever again become a mainstream movement. In America and other Western nations, Marxist agitators from the 1960's quietly slipped into the mainstream of society, assuming university professorships or becoming civil rights advocates. They no longer pose an existential threat, but their ideas continue to influence younger generations.

Radical Islamists, on the other hand, have been very careful to build their movement in the shadows, in the privacy of mosques and madrassahs. They have also been very careful to firmly link radical Islam with suffering at the hands of the wealthy and the powerful -- and the Jew. By continually reinforcing this critical link with Marxist thinking, they have gained the sympathy of Western journalists and academics, who have unwittingly become some of their most powerful and influential allies. This link has been established so thoroughly with respect to the Palestinian people that even the most open displays of radical Islamic bloodlust are almost universally greeted by Western journalists with heartfelt sympathy and pleas for an end to Zionist oppression.

Most radical Islamists have also been very careful not to openly or directly associate themselves with governments or nation-states. After 9/11, the two most prominent state sponsors of terrorism, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists in Iraq, were wiped out by Allied military. Libya gave up its nuclear program and pledged full cooperation with the West. The Pakistanis and Saudis also decided that being linked to terrorists was a bad idea. And when Al-Qaeda forces made the tactical blunder of concentrating their numbers in Iraq, they were summarily decimated by Allied and Iraqi fighters. Of the last remaining terrorist strongholds, Somalia is a shambles and is primarily controlled by a loose confederation of belligerent tribal leaders. And Iran is a curious case, a nation governed by an extremely clever Islamic regime that has cleverly positioned itself as both a supporter of the oppressed Palestinians, and a victim of imperialist American aggression, thus avoiding condemnation from the West at large. Iran is also the only Islamist nation that has inflicted a significant defeat upon the United States military.

So what are we left with, those of us in the cross-hairs of radical Islamists? Certainly not conventional warfare. Although we learned many lessons about guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, and although we have enlisted the invaluable aid of Israelis, who have been combating radical Islamists for decades, there is no way to mount a full-scale military assault against a shadowy enemy who is fully integrated into the world's civilian populations.

We also suffer from a completely misguided urge to treat terrorism as a crime. It isn't -- as I explained above. Our overly sensitive, politically correct news media has been so besieged by people claiming to be victims of injustice that they cannot bring themselves to stop using the words "alleged" or "suspected" unless a perpetrator has been warranted, surveyed, arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, and finally denied an appeal. Terrorists know this. The tasteless exploitation perfected by "Paliwood" is sufficient proof of how easily our news media can be manipulated. Captured training manuals instruct terrorists to claim mistreatment and torture at the hands of their captors, in order to gain sympathy from the media.

Reports of the Mumbai massacre included detailed accounts of armed policemen refusing to shoot the terrorists, even when some of them had ample opportunities for clear shots. Some policemen reportedly hid, fearing for their lives. It's hard to say why this happened; certainly some situations would have provided the police with a good opportunity to neutralize the attackers, while others would not. But undoubtedly many police simply did not know when it was acceptable to use deadly force. Terrorists know this too, and they will not hesitate to take full advantage of it.

The pirates currently menacing the waters off the coast of Africa know it as well. Of course piracy is a crime, an illegal enterprise that is nothing more than glorified theft. The pirates know that we in the West abhor violence and death, and that we will pay anything or do anything to avoid bloodshed. These things simply make their ends much easier to meet.

Some nations have been forced to put aside the West's aversion to killing in order to ensure their own survival. Israel has learned the hard way that they must stop terrorists, even if they are forced to inflict casualties among the innocents that terrorists deliberately use as human shields. Naturally Israel is condemned for such actions, but Israel knows, without any doubt, that no other nation is going to actually try to stop them -- because such an effort would itself involve violence. But the flip side of such defiance is that Israel also knows that few nations -- perhaps only the United States and Great Britain -- would ever shed the blood of their own sons and daughters in order to defend them.

So it seems that we are left with two rather imperfect solutions, each involving a non-trivial margin of error. First, we should not turn our world into a police state that spies on all its inhabitants and routinely jails people on the flimsiest of suspicions or complaints. But we should understand that all civilized nations allow for the surveillance and detention of suspects for a good reason -- our own safety. When we allow collective guilt to overtake common sense, and we begin to treat criminals or suspected terrorists as victims and law enforcement officials as criminals, then we have compromised our best non-violent security system and rendered it virtually useless.

Likewise, saber-rattling, massive buildups of offensive weaponry, and routine or heavy-handed use of aggression, violence, destruction, and killing are all examples of completely unacceptable behavior. America and her allies should not be "enforcers," figuratively breaking kneecaps around the world whenever we feel threatened. But we should realize that there are some situations, like the Mumbai
massacre, where the use of deadly force is not an over-reaction or a
crime against humanity, but a necessary course of action that will ultimately -- in spite of its temporary pain -- save far more lives than it takes.

We cannotforce an end to any ideology, so long as its proponents succeed in convincing the gullible that they are victims of surreptitious conspiracies. But we can protect ourselves from its followers.

I had been working on a couple of blog posts this weekend, one about the new Obama administration and the other about the Mumbai terror attacks. Those posts were cast by the wayside, however, when I received the news this morning that my mother had passed away. (Added - I was up at 5:30 AM this morning, unable to sleep, so I finished the Mumbai piece. You'll find it just below this one. - Mike)

Her health had been in decline for some time, due mainly to the debilitating effects of a stroke that she suffered in 2000. Then there was a cancer diagnosis late last year. We knew that Mom was on borrowed time.

She had been living near us, in an Oklahoma City nursing home, for some time. We visited her often, and she particularly cherished her grandchildren -- especially when they were babies. Mom always had a soft spot for babies. She would cuddle our babies, stroking their hair, kissing them gently, and whispering tenderly to them. We would have to practically pry them out of her hands when our visits came to an end.

My father's death ten years ago from pancreas cancer was a particularly terrible one. He suffered greatly, and the bedside vigil during his last hours was one of the most difficult things that I have ever endured. Our prayer for Mom was that she would pass peacefully, with little or no suffering. Our prayer was answered. After her health had deteriorated to the point where she could no longer eat, the hospice staff kept her warm and comfortable in her bed, medicating her only for pain. She passed away quietly in her sleep.

As I sat with Mom this morning, holding her frail lifeless hand and letting go of my sorrow, the words of an old Nazarene hymn came to mind. In fact, it was one of Mom's favorites:

Monday morning's top news story will undoubtedly be the volume of cumulative sales generated by American Christmas shoppers this weekend, as financial analysts argue over whether or not it was "enough." But this year's "Black Friday" take-away story is undoubtedly the senseless death of a Wal-Mart employee in Valley Stream, NJ, who was trampled to death by an unruly mob of bargain hunters.

And those shoppers didn't just trample Jdimytai Damour to death; they continued to rush into the store, past his lifeless body, shoving paramedics out of the way until the agitated mob was finally pushed back by police. Then they fumed when authorities cleared the store and closed it down.

What does it say about us, when the value we place on cheap video games and DVD players overwhelms our ability to do even the simplest of decent things, to step back and allow paramedics to try to save an injured man's life?

It's easy to come up with a lengthy list of "-isms," to whose surface we can easily affix blame -- Americanism, capitalism, materialism, consumerism, racism, etc. But the root cause is far more complex, and dare I say, far more painful. Please consider this excellent analysis by The Anchoress:

I once actually saw two women quarrel over an item, just like in the
movies, while Christmas shopping. I was very young, and knew everything
at the time, so I blamed it on American materialism and its corruptive
influence on the soul. Materialism CAN corrupt the soul, of course - as
can capitalism untempered by compassion - but as I’ve matured, I’ve
come to reject the easy and cynical course that finds “America” and its
values to be at the core of every negative situation I encounter.
Instead, I have decided to think of the aggression of the battling
shoppers to be rooted in vulnerability. They’ve decided they want to
purchase a particular item for someone they love. Perhaps this is how
they express love. Perhaps they believe, subconsciously, that this is
the only way they can be loved back. Perhaps this is a budgeted item
and the only way they can afford to purchase it is at a heavily reduced
price and - because they love - they’re willing to fight for it.

Looked at in this way, the “crassness” of all of this consumer
excess seems less clear, and one finds oneself - as one does all too
often, if one is paying attention - in the middle of yet another Holy
Mystery. Love is the highest human aspiration, but when it lacks
anchoring in something bigger than itself, it tends to drift a bit and
take on some detritus (doubt, hurt, anger, self-hate) that gets into
the workings and distorts the navigation, a little; in that case,
suddenly love can lead us away from, and not toward, our best selves.
And then where are you? You’re tugging on a toy with another shopper
and sending all sorts of messages to your family and to the
world-at-large, that you never intended to send. About yourself and
your values, about your society, even about your nation.

There was an early episode of CSI, "Unfriendly Skies," that dealt with a similar ordeal. A passenger on a transcontinental flight is suffering from undiagnosed encephalitis, or swelling of the brain. This causes extreme discomfort and eventually leads to psychotic behavior. A group of five fellow passengers fears for their lives, and what begins as an attempt to restrain the victim soon escalates into a violent attack that leaves the man dead.

Although this fictional story dealt with a much more serious issue (the taking of a life in order to subdue an unknown threat and thus save one's own life) the underlying premise is the same one faced by the mob of Wal-Mart shoppers --to what extent do we ignore our conscience in order to get what we want, particularly in a situation where we assume (or dictate) that responsibility is "shared," and therefore we are somehow allowed to abdicate our normal moral boundaries?

In fact, another essay linked by The Anchoress in an earlier post noted that those who commit or inspire the greatest acts of evil (think Cromwell or Robespierre or Mugabe or Hitler) often do so because they ultimately desire to accomplish something good (religious freedom, or equality, or security). To satisfy this end, evil often masquerades as morality, imparting heavy doses of guilt and conviction to those who are judged to be less than fully committed to "the new way".

I'm sure that most of the people in that out-of-control Wal-Mart mob love other people greatly -- parents, children, neighbors, family -- and would make great sacrifices in order to impart happiness, even shallow, fleeting happiness, upon their loved ones. Yet as we have seen, even these people are capable of commiting great evil through the disordered way in which they attempted to achieve a good end. That disorder led to the death of an innocent man. The Wal-Mart incident is simply a local representation of a global problem; a problem, I believe, that is beyond the capabiliy of mankind to solve on its own.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and
establishing the Plymouth colony
in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are
hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The
harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are
grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year
repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon
prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called
America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were
the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were
lazy thieves.

Yikes. If the "official story" is that wrong, then what really happened?

Fortunately for us, William Bradford, who was to become the second Governor of Plymouth Colony, kept a detailed journal of events from those early years. Regarding the year 1621, this is what he wrote:

They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and
dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all
things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were
exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of
which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to
come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came
first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was a great store
of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a
peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which
made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England,
which were not feigned but true reports.

There was no bountiful "harvest," but apparently enough wild game to keep the people fed (even though they seem to have over-hunted waterfowl to the point of noticeably depleting them). The "small harvest" was mostly Indian corn, a commodity provided to them by Squanto, an erstwhile captive native American who was able to speak broken English due to the time he had spent with other Englishmen (mostly fishermen) years earlier in Newfoundland. Bradford writes of Squanto:

... Squanto continued with them and was their interpreter and was a special
instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation. He directed them how to
set their corn, where to take fish, and to procure other commodities, and was also their
pilot to bring them to unknown places for their profit, and never left them till he died.

The colonists did have much to be thankful for near the end of 1621, namely the fact that just over half of them were still alive. They had also signed a peace treaty with the Pokanoket people; thus their fear of extinction at the hands of Native Americans was greatly alleviated. They celebrated their first Thanksgiving that year with a harvest feast, but even though there was food to eat, the colonists grew weary, and disease and discontent blanketed the colony. William Bradford had been chosen as the colony's second governor after the first, John Carver, collapsed and died due to heat exhaustion in April.

Now here is where the story gets interesting. The colonists soon realized that there would be little or no provision arriving by ship from England for them, so they began to rethink some of the communal structure of their colony. Originally, Plymouth Colony was structured as a literal "commonwealth," a community of individuals entering into a mutual covenant, whose laws were designed to benefit the common good, rather than an elite ruling class. To this end, private property was limited to the personal possessions of each individual. The economy, including land, dwellings, agriculture, and commerce, was placed under the control of the colony; each settler was "to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common
stock," wrote Bradford, which meant that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any
other means" were to be placed in that common stock, not kept by individuals.

This early experiment in communism was disastrous. Bradford continues:

For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much
confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit
and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did
repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and
children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of
victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could;
this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors
and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity
and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men,
as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery,
neither could many husbands well brook it.

Few settlers made the required contributions to the common stock. Many feigned illness in order to escape mandated work quotas; others simply refused to work. Many colonists hoarded commodities, and some colonists stole from the common stock outright. (It should be noted that most -- though not all -- of the Plymouth settlers were devout Separatist/Congregationalist Christian men and women. Also, each male head of household signed the Mayflower Compact, which acknowledged the right of everyone who signed it to share in the making
and administering of laws and the right of the majority to rule.)

After two years, faced with the situation at hand, Governor Bradford proposed a solution:

At length,
after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them)
gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard
trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so
assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number,
for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all
boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very
industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means
the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far
better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones
with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have
compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

Fascinating, isn't it? Nearly four hundred years later, the defenders of the poor among us still cry "oppression" and "exploitation" when an organization offers homeless people simple jobs (like delivering newspapers), or when it is suggested that the poor perform some kind of community service in exchange for government benefits. And Bradford straightforwardly admits that the colony's government could never have coaxed the colonists into such hard work simply by appealing to "the common good." Yet this drastic turnaround required the modification of no other laws, save for the apportionment of land and seed and tools to each family, and the guarantee that each family would be allowed to provide for their own security first, rather than to give the entire sum of their labors to a common stock.

William Bradford was a wise man, and noted in his journal that the assumption of equality, "if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at
least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst
them." When all the settlers were "equal," they soon became equally bitter and equally miserable. Bradford concluded:

Let none object
this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have
this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them. (emphasis added)

...

It has been a habit of conservatives to re-write the story of the Plymouth Colony as a story illustrating the triumphs of free-marked capitalism. Of course the story is much more complicated than that. Abandoning the "common stock" economy proved to be an absolute gain for the colony, but at the same time, the colonists had established their community and had finally adjusted to life in Massachusetts. They signed peace treaties with the Native Americans (but did not always honor them), they learned how to plant, harvest, and cook corn; they became proficient hunters and fishermen, explored vast areas of land, and eventually began to trade with other Englishmen and natives. Proficiency in all of these areas led to the eventual success of the colony.

And rather than the bold experiment in absolute laissez-faire touted by free market proponents, the inspiration for the assignment of land to the Plymouth colonists seems to actually be inspired by the plan for inheritance of land given to the nation of Israel by God in Numbers 33: "You shall inherit the land by lot according to your clans. To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small
tribe you shall give a small inheritance. Wherever the lot falls for
anyone, that shall be his. According to the tribes of your fathers you
shall inherit." Land was not taken from the Plymouth community in a free-for-all competition where colonists outsmarted or outbid each other; rather, it was given to each family according to their needs, with the expectation that, after each family's immediate needs were met, the bounty would still be available to the community, either through sales, trade, or charity.

If there is an honest lesson to be learned from the Pilgrims, it is probably the simple truth that each of us desires a measure of recognized individual success, and consequently, a community will not be secure until its individual members feel that they have been able to secure themselves through the fruits of their own labor. Then, and only then, will there be an abundance that can be sold, traded, or given to others. Until mankind's basic nature changes, he can flourish only within systems based on that truth. Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in lands that are generally free from state-imposed tyranny certainly have much to be thankful for.

ADDED: The Pilgrims were of course Congregationalists, not Puritans. I have corrected this above.

Will Barack Obama try to introduce a "New" New Deal? -- Amity Shales notes that the Great Depression gave Democrats a platform from which they could launch a variety of progressive "reforms," many of which had been pet agenda items for over a decade and had little or nothing to do with economic stimulus. Supporters of more government intervention in the economy should also read this report from UCLA, which states that many of FDR's New Deal programs (specifically artificial wage and price controlls) actually served to lengthen the Great Depression.

And now The New York Times is riffing on the same theme... But wait a minute - are these stories honest conclusions drawn from historical research, or are we seeing further proof that the media is attempting to soften criticism of the Obama administration if they can't keep their promises of tax cuts and prosperity?

...

Big 3 bailout on hold for now -- The Senate has decided to postpone any government financial aid for the Big Three automakers. The fact that their CEO's flew to Washington DC aboard mega-expensive luxury charter jets in order to plead en forma pauperis before Congress didn't help. And president-elect Obama is staying far away from the issue.

Powerline blog notes an eerie similarity between the current financial woes of the Big Three, and a coming financial disaster for our own government:

The real story is the frightening extent to which Detroit is just
the New Deal U.S. in microcosm...the Big 3 became essentially private
versions of the middle class welfare state...social agencies for
providing non-market validated income, health and retirement benefits,
with a sideline of making cars....and now the model is unsustainable.
In part it is because of the burden of the retired UAW
workforce, which now vastly outnumbers the actual working members. As
of 2007, the UAW represented 180,681 members at Chrysler, Ford and
General Motors; it also represented 419,621 retired members and 120,723
surviving spouses.

This is not dissimilar to Social Security and Medicare for the U.S.
economy as a whole. Both of these entitlement programs are unfunded
liabilities of the U.S. government, politically, if not legally, and,
on a current basis, consume almost 50% of the $3 trillion federal
budget. They were viable on a pay-as-you-go basis only at inception and
as long as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is high. Neither
condition obtains today. So it becomes an interesting question and
rather soon I think: when the U.S. government becomes like
Detroit...who does the bailing out?

...

Sign of the apocalypse? -- Religious extremists often view the election of one political candidate or another as a choice that will bring either blessings or punishment from God. But did you know that Shia Islam might be reserving a very special place for Barack Obama?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a devoted follower of Shia Islam and an ardent believer in the end times teaching of Shia (yes, Virginia, there are other "end times" teachings besides The Revelation) which revolves around the appearance of the Mahdi, a Messianic figure who will deliver the entire world into the kingdom of Islam. Noted Muslim author Amir Taheri pointed out a curious chain of events a few weeks ago that is linked directly to the Obama presidency:

Is Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?

The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a
pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite
text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet's
cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just
before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man
will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the
strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear
sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The
tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."

In a curious coincidence Obama's first and second names--Barack
Hussein--mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian. His
family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma,
which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi's tradition.

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's
rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam.
Obama's promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic
is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat.

Liberals enjoy making fun of Christian evangelicals and their "Left Behind" mania. Let's see how they respond to the politicization of eschatological teachings from another major religious tradition, particularly one that involves their own Savior.

...

The planet has cooled since George W. Bush took office -- It's true, so deal with it. If you're still not convinced, then here is much more.

Of course George W. Bush had nothing to do with the current cooling trend, just like Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the warming trend of the 1990's. But Bush does deserve credit for slyly robbing the environmental Chicken Littles of any opportunity to credit the Kyoto Protocol with the current global temperature decline.

Truthfully, there are no current human initiatives that can be credited with any sort of global temperature offset. That's fantastic news, because the last thing we need is a bunch of loony Gaia worshipers thinking that they have successfully appeased their Goddess.

That's not to say they won't keep trying however. Two weeks ago, NASA's GISS team, lead by Al Gore's chief environmental high priest Dr. James Hanson, announced that October 2008 was the warmest month ever measured. Their claim was immediately debunked after investigators discovered that much of their data from Russia and elsewhere were not real measurement data at all, but estimates derived from carrying over previous month's temperatures.

And in real scientific news, scientists working in Antarctica believe that they have detected special electron-positron particle pairs that can only emerge from weak interactions between massive particles of so-called "dark matter." Dark matter is thought to comprise up to 25% of the known universe, but it has been virtually impossible to detect because it has zero interactivity with light.

...

Here's your 'well duh!' blood-boiler of the day -- If you thought that selling bonds comprised of shares in risky mortgages was bad, then you should read this account of "tobacco bonds," municipal bonds sold by states to raise money in lieu of tobacco settlement cash; but with the current economic downturn, and the steadily shrinking supply of smokers, the tobacco companies can't pay out the money to cover the bond debts. And if that's not bad enough, only one third of the tobacco settlement money was spent by states on health issues and tobacco control programs. Arrrgh!

All the recent election clamor and media worship of our messianic President-elect might have obscured one of the major news stories of 2008 -- the stunning victory of US and Allied forces over the remains of Saddam loyalists and evil Al-Quaeda interlopers in Iraq. That's right -- VICTORY.

You haven't read much about Iraq because there has been little to read. Casualties have been extremely low. Terror attacks are rare. In fact, the murder rate in Chicago this summer was double the number of US casualties in Iraq. When the media loathes the US military, and when the Democrats invest all their political capital in losing our military efforts, then that kind of news is incredibly bad news, and it simply isn't reported.

"There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and
about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this
tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South
Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's
nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen
anything. I've been asking Iraqis, 'do you think the violence will kick
up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now
and they're usually dour."

Wow. Just ... wow.

Everything you need to know about the Iraq victory is here, courtesy of Zombietime.

A final prediction -- look for 2009 to be filled with compassionate, humanitarian stories about the US military presence in Iraq; how they are building roads and schools, how they are training civil engineers, how they are providing electricity and clean water, how they are loved by the people, and maybe we shouldn't completely pull out ... just yet.

But remember the time line. The war is essentially over NOW. What remains in Iraq is infrastructure building, and a final mop up of Al-Qaeda remnants and Iranian infiltrators. And not a single Democrat elected in Nov. 2008 has been sworn in. Democrats -- especially Barack Obama and his worshiping throngs -- simply cannot claim this victory.

However, if you must peg a turning point, pick November 2006. The Congressional shake-up forced the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld and the installation of a new SecDef, William Gates. And Gates was responsible for appointing General Petraeus to oversee operations in Iraq. And General Petraeus made the "surge" happen. You know, the "surge," predicted by every major partisan Democrat and every Left-wing wag to end in utter failure? If we must give the Democrats credit for something, give them credit for how shockingly, embarrassingly wrong they have been during the last four years.

So congratulations to all the US and Allied servicemen and civilian contractors who won. You did it. God bless you all.

Perhaps because there are a lot of new people hitting CG for the
first time because of the election surge, I've been getting questions
about the bikini pics on CG in my email every few days. Here's an
example,

"Hello John, my name is Andrew, and I have a quick
question for you. I believe I read in one of your pieces on Right Wing
News that you are a Christian. Is that true? If so, then why does it
look like you post bikini pictures on Conservative Grapevine as well as
RWN? e.g., Sarah Palin at the pool.

Do you think that it's OK to do that as a Christian?" -- Andrew Bell

... I grew up Baptist and still go to church every week -- but, perhaps
I missed the sermon where we were told Christians aren't supposed to
admire the female form or are supposed to be horrified by women in
bikinis. Maybe they just leave that part out because I live at the
beach.

I'd also like to add that you see women in bikinis on TV, in
advertisements, in video games -- just about everywhere in our society.
So, if they help traffic on CG -- and they definitely do (I think it's
entirely possible CG may be bigger than RWN by the end of 2009), then
why wouldn't I want them on there?

Most blog readers are guys, and guys like eye candy. What's weird is that chicks
like celebrity eye candy, too. It's true. Go pick up Us Weekly or
People and what do you see? Paparazzi shots of starlets in bikinis. And
who reads those magazines? Chicks. Same thing with fashion magazines --
lots of shots of barely-dressed models, especially in the ads. For some
reason, completely hetero women like looking at beautiful women.

Blogging
is (or ought to be) a capitalist enterprise, the object being to draw
more visitors and thereby generate more revenue. If there is one thing
that conservatives agree on, it's that capitalism is better than
socialism, so if you don't want me running to Congress asking for a
blogger bailout, then a bit of eye candy is a small price to pay. And
as a greedy capitalist blogger, it makes no difference to me whether
you come for the Anne Hathaway cleavage shots and stay for the politics, or vice-versa.

I've done a bit of babe-blogging over the years. (example) (example) And I wholeheartedly agree - it is a guaranteed traffic generator.

So in the spirit of things, I decided to once again do my part, and share some nice, super hi-res images of some of my favorite celeb-crushes. Images below the fold. Nothing scandalous, but if you are "the weaker brother," then you have been warned:

Should we bail out the UAW ... er, GM, Ford, and Chrysler? -- John Hinderaker at Powerline says no, and notes that the $25 billion that GM wants is probably more than the market value of all Big Three auto makers combined. He also provides a nice graph that succinctly illustrates the problem:

And writing for the Wall Street Journal, Michael Levine says that GM should not be bailed out; rather, they should file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. He writes, "The social and political costs would be very large, but if GM fails
after getting $50 billion or $100 billion in bailout money, it'll be
just as large and there will be less money to soften the blow and even
more blame to go around." Under Chapter 11, GM would be forced to renegotiate vendor contracts, dealer obligations, pension and health care benefits, property leasing and municipal bond agreements, and labor contracts.

Foreign automakers like Toyota and Nissan who build cars in the US are not burdened by these obligations, many of them dating back 30, 40, 50, and even 60 years. I agree with Mr. Levine. Unless GM undergoes a major restructuring, there is no way it will ever be able to dig itself out from under these massive legacy expenditures. Over the years, GM has promised more pieces of pie than it can now cut out of the pan. Bankruptcy is probably the only way to force anyone to give up their piece of GM's pie.

...

Well, knock me over with a feather, again -- "ACLU calls on governor to create privacy protections". Ohio's governor, that is. Seems that the roughshod treatment of "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher even ruffled the feathers of the ACLU, known for its routine dismissal of civil rights cases that do not advance the radical liberal/progressive agenda. But now even they are concerned. Will wonders ever cease?

...

"We seem to have crossed a cultural line into myth-making" -- writes Howard Kurtz, regarding the media's maniacal obsession with Barack Obama. Unfortunately the honeymoon can't last forever. "But what happens," Kurtz writes, "when adulation gives way to the messy, incremental process of
governing?"

I think we are already seeing the beginning of a very cautious attempt by some of the more wizened members of the press to begin lowering the public's expectations of Obama, if perhaps only down to the upper levels of human achievement. The LA Times' Dan Morain recently reviewed Obama's unimpressively thin legal resume and came away...well...less than impressed. Naturally no one in the MSM was interested in this before the election, but now they are looking for anything with which to make a soft landing pad, in anticipation of The One's first major policy stumble.

In an attempt to dial down expectations for his administration,
President-elect Barack Obama’s supporters have dropped much of the
“messiah” talk. No more talk of him being The One (Oprah), or a Jedi Knight (George Lucas), or a “Lightworker” (the San Francisco Chronicle),
or a “quantum leap in American consciousness” (Deepak Chopra). Instead
we have more humble and circumspect conversation about the man. Now
he’s merely Abraham Lincoln and FDR and Martin Luther King, combined.

You should also check out John Ziegler's new website How Obama Got Elected. Of course Ziegler doesn't "prove" that ignorance among the general electorate led to Obama's victory. That's probably not true; people will often vote for a candidate they like or trust, regardless of the behavior of that candidate -- witness the re-election of William "Cold Cash" Jefferson in Louisiana and Jack "Col. Porky McABSCAM" Murtha in Pennsylvania. But Ziegler does show, both through interviews and a poll carried out by the Zogby organization, that Obama voters generally knew very little negative information about Obama, compared to a tremendous amount of negative -- sometimes even fictional -- information about Sarah Palin. This can be attributed to nothing short of full-blown news media bias.

...

Can't take my eyes off of you ... -- It seems that the folks who put together the satirical OKC blog The Lost Oglereally do know their ogling; last week they posted a hilarious video of News 5 anchorman Paul Folger paying a curious amount of close attention to newsbabe Jessica Schambach:

By the way, The Lost Ogle is really named after Kent Ogle, Kelly Ogle, Kevin Ogle, and their father Jack Ogle, who together have infested OKC's broadcast television airwaves for fifty years.

Okay, so a year ago I said that I was going to add some audio "podcast" segments to my blog, and finally ... I'm ready! I've already done several "Futuristic Rhythm" audio shows for my Virtual Victrola, but on Mike's Noise I'll be mostly talking, with some occasional music thrown in to break the tension.

Music: "Marie" - Tommy Dorsey and his Orchestra, featuring Bunny Berigan on trumpet. November 2008 is the 100th anniversary of Bunny Berigan's birth. I'm blogging about Bunny over at the Virtual Victrola.

In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive
bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the
country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and
repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses,
from insurers to consumer lenders.

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.

Yet
for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the
independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved
the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the
first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though
the initial deadline has passed.

The pulled-out-of-the-posterior “$700 billion” price tag has ballooned
into the trillions. The “mortgage industry rescue” has expanded to
banks, insurance companies, automakers, credit card companies, and
possibly the entire national volume of consumer lending. Oh, and that
vaunted “TARP” component, Paulson admitted this week, is nothing but a
four-letter-word that rhymes with TRAP ... “Our assessment at this time is that this is not the most effective way
to use TARP funds,” he sheepishly told the nation Wednesday.

For what it's worth, Senators Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, and David Vitter (all Republicans) have sent a letter to the Treasury Department highlighting Paulson's naked bait and switch:

We are writing to express our deep concern over your announcement
this morning that the Department of the Treasury will halt all plans to
purchase trouble mortgage assets through the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP). We are concerned that the program has been
fundamentally changed from its original intent and worry that continued
changes may erode the structures of accountability put in to protect
taxpayers. ...Although the legislation was passed on October 3, the program
was never implemented and now has been officially abandoned in favor of
alternative plans after little more than a month. Such a rapid reversal
raises questions about the TARP’s original design as well as the
propriety of future plans.

Congress never intended for the TARP to be a blank check that
could be spent with unlimited discretion. To ensure proper boundaries
are in place to protect the taxpayer, we hope and expect that
congressional approval will be sought by the administration before
further changes are made.

Apparently the Democrats have been too busy preparing for their Presidential coronation and subsequent power grabs to notice.

Knock me over with a feather pt. 2 -- "Obama likely to escape campaign audit" It seems that the potenially massive donation fraud enabled by the Obama campaign will not be investigated by the FEC, simply because Obama took no public campaign funds. On the other hand, John McCain will be forced to spend upwards on $10 million on manditory FEC audits because he accepted public campaign funds. If you recall, Obama originally pledged to accept public money, but then reneged on his pledge. One has to wonder if this is because he knew he could then accept unlimited donations without fear of an audit. And of course our feckless, in-the-tank news media could care less.

Maybe Sally Kern was on to something -- "Palm Springs Rally Turns Violent" The post-Proposition 8 unhinged gay meltdown continues in California. Witness angry gays attack a pro-Prop8 protester, wrestle her cross away, and stomp on it. Then imagine the maniacal screaming fit national gay activists would have if a Christian protester ever ripped down a rainbow flag and stomped it into the ground:

Interestingly, Proposition 8 (which defined marriage specifically between a man and a woman) passed by a 52% - 48% margin, similar to the national Presidential election spread. If liberals are willing to proclaim 52% as "America united" and a "mandate" for their party, what does that say about Proposition 8's 52% majority?

If the proposed auto industry rescue is going to happen, and that
should become clear next week as industry executives and union leaders
testify before Congress, it makes sense for the government to name a
"car czar" to watch over the Detroit Three as they spend $25 billion in
taxpayer money.

Inescapable fact - the United Auto Workers is one of the nation's most powerful unions. Big Labor spent in excess of $300 million during the 2008 election cycle, 90% of which went to Democrats. It seems highly improbable to me that any Democrat-led "reform" of the auto industry will be able to address one of the biggest financial sinkholes plaguing the Big 3: the shocking compensation demands of UAW contracts.

As for me, I'm not holding my breath waiting for Detroit to produce Uncle Sam's version of the Trabant. Neither is blogger Orin Kerr. Here is his concept of the new "US Government Model One:"

Mary was found by a British charity worker and today lives at a refuge in Akwa
Ibom province with 150 other children who have been branded witches, blamed
for all their family's woes, and abandoned. Before being pushed out of their
homes many were beaten or slashed with knives, thrown onto fires, or had
acid poured over them as a punishment or in an attempt to make them
"confess" to being possessed. In one horrific case, a young girl called Uma
had a three-inch nail driven into her skull.

Yet Mary and the others at the shelter are the lucky ones for they, at least,
are alive. Many of those branded "child-witches" are murdered - hacked to
death with machetes, poisoned, drowned, or buried alive in an attempt to
drive Satan out of their soul.

The devil's children are "identified" by powerful religious leaders at
extremist churches where Christianity and traditional beliefs have combined
to produce a deep-rooted belief in, and fear of, witchcraft. The priests
spread the message that child-witches bring destruction, disease and death
to their families. And they say that, once possessed, children can cast
spells and contaminate others.

The religious leaders offer help to the families whose children are named as
witches, but at a price. The churches run exorcism, or "deliverance",
evenings where the pastors attempt to drive out the evil spirits. Only they
have the power to cleanse the child of evil spirits, they say. The exorcism
costs the families up to a year's income.(emphasis added)

Well, that explains it, doesn't it? There is, I believe, a special place in Hell for those who would deceive the innocent and prey on their fears, using distorted religion and doing it all for money. Then of course they can claim that God has "blessed them" for their good works. Bastards.

This past weekend, I thought quite a bit about how to blog the Barack Obama presidency. There were several ideas -- a news blog with snarky commentary about everything he does; a satire blog dedicated to "Our Messiah," etc. But to tell you the truth, right now I don't feel very adversarial. I know too many good people who voted for the guy. And the last thing that I want to see is a repeat of the last 8 years of vulgar, unhinged hatred like that which has been given to President Bush. I don't want to suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, comparing him to Hitler or Stalin on a daily basis, accusing him of murder and bloodlust, threatening impeachment at the drop of a hat, and denouncing half of the country as vile, terminally stupid cretins. I have a life to live, and that level of hating takes way too much effort.

On the other hand, our nation is desperately in deed of guardians, people who are willing to look at Obama's ideas with a critical eye and offer opinions about them, rather than blindly accepting everything and filling the airwaves and cyberspace with propaganda. Sadly, the mainstream news media in this country is no longer capable of fulfilling that role.

The mainstream media's bold uncuriosity about Obama's past (save for the carefully-crafted narratives supplied by Obama's handlers and Obama himself -- and remember how awful it was for George W. Bush to be "uncurious"?) was both frustrating and at times comical. They could dig up John McCain's torturer in Vietnam, and they had no problem attempting to solicit dirt on Cindy McCain from teenage friends of the McCain children via Facebook messages, and they could rush a gaggle of investigative reporters onto the next flight to Anchorage to dredge up everyone and everything ever associated with Sarah Heath Palin.

But they could never be bothered to assemble major investigative pieces that included interviews with the "Marxist professors" Obama claims he hung out with in college, or the occupants of the neighborhoods that he represented (with the exception of one newspaper, The Boston Globe), or interviews with high school or college buddies with whom he admitted attending "socialist conferences," or his high school or college drug dealers; or extensive front-page profiles of Chicago cronies like Anthony Rezko or his long-time mentor and adviser William Ayres. They begrudgingly reported on Obama's impoverished extended family only after being scooped by the foreign press and (again) one newspaper, The Boston Globe. Most major pieces on Obama were published 9 months ago or longer -- much longer -- and the mainstream media had no desire to keep the information in those articles above the page fold in the weeks leading up to the election.

Truth is, with few exceptions, we've completely lost the skeptical inquirers who once populated the ranks of the American mainstream news media. They no longer see a need to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," perhaps because they believe that with Barack Obama in charge, the Federal Government will do that job for them. They've admitted their biases. They are in the tank for the Obama Administration, and they are committed to the success of his administration, objectivity be damned.

So what can I do as a blogger? What can you do as an average citizen?

For starters, stay positive. Stay hopeful. No one, except for a few fringe kooks, really wants to see our nation suffer. We simply have different ideas about what a prosperous future for America should look like. Conservatives want a community of free individuals. Liberals want a collective managed by a benevolent government. It's okay to oppose ideas that you believe are harmful. It's okay to oppose ideas that chip away at the core values of America. Columnist Cliff May notes:

Give Obama his due: It is an exceptional politician who can win the
support of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Kenneth
Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Reagan; of William
Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist and Christopher Buckley, son of William
F. Buckley, founder of modern conservatism; of Rashid Khalidi, an
Israel-hater, and Edgar Bronfman, former head of the World Jewish
Congress. Here's a not-very-bold prediction: A year from now, someone
is going to be sorely disappointed. (emphasis added)

We can clearly define the concepts of voluntary community and individual freedom. There will be passionate arguments about birthrights, about heritage, about privilege, about what we are owed by our government and about how those debts are to be paid. We can explain that in America, the state does not -- and should not -- define the individual. We can argue that the individual should never be forced to turn over whatever he has to the state, even for seemingly benevolent purposes. We can champion individual charity, which is conspicuously absent among socialist European nations that heavily tax and regulate their citizens. I could go on, but you get the idea.

It's also okay to be funny - apparently Comedy Central isn't interested in the presidency any more, so the market for White House humor is now wide-open. Maybe they spent all their creative energy on Li'l Bush and That's My Bush. Or maybe they're still struggling to come up with a good double entendre for "Obama." At any rate, nothing should stop us from having some good clean fun with the Presidency and Congress.

What ever we do, the ultimate goal should be dialog. During this campaign, the press deliberately chose to end dialog and replace it with directive, based on their narrative of how a better America should be achieved. Many conservatives recognized this, and out of frustration they hit back with extremely partisan commentary that further eroded the ability to reasonably discuss the election and the ideas of the candidates.

For my part, I am planning to launch a series of dialogs on my blog. I'll suggest a topic (something like "how do we define centrist?") and then invite bloggers and commenters to contribute their thoughts. Hopefully such dialogs will help to build a loyal readership base (something I have yet to really successfully accomplish) and at the same time, contribute something positive to the national conversations about current problems and how government should (or should not) involve itself in their solutions.

It seems to me that now, blogs really are "alternative media," and if you are looking for informative discussion instead of instructional propaganda, you will be looking for those discussions online. Join me, won't you?

Michelle Malkin has a chilling round-up of violent reactions and threats made by unhinged gay activists in California in the wake of Tuesday's Proposition 8 victory. Proposition 8 specified that "marriage" is solely the union of a man and a woman. Some incidents being reported:

A San Diego man physically assaulted his elderly neighbors because of a Proposition 8 sign in their yard

Commenters and bloggers on radical gay sites are threatening to disrupt weddings, physically assault or kill Prop 8 supporters, and burn down churches

Last year, Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern made a speech about the radical gay agenda. She compared the danger posed by radical gays to that posed by terrorists (the same comparison Rosie O'Donnell made concerning Christian fundamentalists). You can agree or disagree with what she said, but Rep. Kern simply made a speech. A speech. No threats, no intimidation, no physical violence. Yet she was creamed by liberal blogs, gay activists, and show business personalities for what she said.

Fast-forward to today, to the aftermath of Prop. 8. Think the mainstream press will make page one news out of it these unhinged threats? Think Ellen Degeneres will call Lawrence Pizzicara and demand to know why he attacked his neighbors? The only reaction we'll get from the liberal chattering class is the sound of crickets chirping.

Assault, arson, murder. I dunno ... it sure sounds like terrorism to me.

_____________________________________________________________

One more thing - if gay rights groups hate Christians and the institutionalized church so much, then why do they demand marriage, which is a religious sacrament performed by licensed clergy? Why would they want the church involved at all? If the whole "gay marriage" thing is nothing but an "equal protection under the law" issue, then why not promote secular civil unions, administered by the state and completely void of any religious affiliation? Wouldn't that make things simpler for everyone?

I believe that legalizing "gay marriage" will only pave the way for radical gay activists to begin to harass religious organizations with discrimination and equal protection lawsuits -- particularly churches that are clear in their refusal to perform gay wedding ceremonies. Is that what we really want? Let's give gays equal protection through civil unions, and leave "marriage" out of it.

...

ADDED: My blog friend LaShawn Barber, who is sickened by the "gay marriage=civil rights movement" argument of radical gay activists, notes that California already allows state-sanctioned domestic partnerships. Perhaps this is why Californians continually vote to keep marriage sacred -- a measure similar to Proposition 8 passed with 61% of the vote in 2000, only to be struck down by the California Supreme Court this year.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. "YOU NIGGER," one man shouted at me. "If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger."
Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the
temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and
a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

I believe that gay activists should simply face the truth: "Thus far, 30 states have outlawed homosexual "marriages" by an average
close to 70% approval by voters through amendments to the state
constitutions." There is clearly an opposition among the general public to gay marriages. Not domestic partnerships or civil unions for gays, but gay marriage.

Gay activists can attack religious groups until they are blue in the face, but the election results clearly indicate that the opposition to gay marriage goes way beyond hard-core fundamentalist Christians, and deep into the mainstream of America. They can falsely accuse the Christian Coalition and other groups of staging hate or fear campaigns, but the truth is that such tactics (were they employed) could never consistently deliver two-and-a-half to one opposition to gay marriage, if people really believed in their hearts that it was a civil right necessary for a free and prosperous nation. Hatemongers like Fred Phelps are not the driving force behind the opposition to gay marriage.

Unfortunately, gay rights activists are even less capable of swaying popular opinion in their favor than the Religious Right. Gay activists have been, for the most part, obnoxious, intimidating, vulgar, and violent, and they have delighted in scandalizing and deliberately offending their opponents. This makes many people (including myself) continually fearful of what their next move is going to be.

Perhaps the gay community should start by firing the current group of malcontents and agitators currently leading its protests, publishing its newspapers and magazines, and writing its blogs. Find people instead who are willing to have conversations. Dialog is the key here, not shouting obscenities through a bullhorn or engaging in crude stereotyping and name-calling. The sincerity and civility that gay activists use to address and motivate their own people should carry over to their conversations with community and religious leaders. In other words, don't become like Fred Phelps in order to stop Fred Phelps.

Or maybe the gay community could involve its people in a series of smaller, proactive projects that create a more direct and positive impact in local neighborhoods. For example, sponsoring a food or clothing drive during the holidays for needy families will garner much more support than marching through the streets wearing leather and chains and yelling into bullhorns. It's all about winning people's trust, rather than bullying or frightening them.